I know no one will see this. I'm not doing this for other people. Other people can see my other comments in other threads, and it will be obvious to them that I am a software engineer. I am doing this because I want to see how long you want to continue to look like an idiot.
I have provided plenty of evidence that I am who I say I am. I can provide even more, and you will never find a discrepancy. It probably will continue not to convince you, because of your bizarrely desperate need for me not to be a software engineer.
Why is it so important to you that I am not a software engineer? Why is it so important to you that I didn't graduate from a good school with a CS degree? Do you fail to get into college? Are you struggling with remedial CS classes in your local community college?
I could easily prove that I am very knowledgeable about computer science to someone else who is knowledgeable. I can answer questions that aren't simply a matter of googling. But it doesn't matter, because you wouldn't be able to ask the right questions or understand the answers.
We haven't even tried to validate your credentials. Why not? Because I don't care and I'm sure their shit.
If you want to keep going, I'll keep going (until I get bored).
It's nice to know that *some* good actually came from all this NSA spying. We didn't really catch any terrorists, but we were able to expose hypocrisy in the French government. Mission Accomplished.
Threat of physical violence is basically where something becomes coercion. Charging high rent prices (i.e. "forcing" someone to make a choice to either pay your rent price or rent a different property) is not coercion. This is like saying Apple is coercing me by forcing me to buy their phone or to get a different phone or to be phoneless.
If a piece of land is capable of making more money as a luxury condos, it means that not doing this is an inefficient use of resources. It's not as if some huge percentage of the population is super wealthy. There is a limit to the market for luxury housing given the incredibly small percentage of people that own most of the wealth. If the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, you'd think they'd be tearing down luxury condos to make apartments with smaller units, or at least have trouble renting out existing apartments that used to be occupied by America's former middle class that can no longer afford them.
Let's say the government of this impoverished 3rd world country passed laws preventing the sale of land to foreigners. This would basically keep the land effectively in a state of low demand, and the people who owned it would remain poor because their land (while valuable to foreigners), can not be sold to the people willing to pay the highest price.
Now if you actually let them sell their land to wealthy Americans, then they have the choice to have their property or lots of money.
What gives us the "the right to push them out?". I suppose it is the fact that the people who owned the land wanted to sell it to us. What gives you the right to tell people to whom they can and can't sell their land to? Maybe some of these poor people want to be able to capitalize on their newly valuable property.
I'm sure the billionaire fuckholes would rather get a higher profit buy building a new building than buying existing buildings at inflated prices. It would be nearly impossible for all the rich people to band together to keep supply low, when the profit potential for breaking this cartel is so high. Fortunately we have the government to do the work of keeping supply artificially low, and in effect holding the cartel together.
Regardless of who buys up all the properties (billionaire fuckholes or nice peace corps volunteers), the supply is being kept low, which is driving up demand.
The people of overpopulated cities can vote to increase the level of housing, or the can move to less crowded cities.
It's hilarious to me that your whole argument hinges on the fact that I am not a software engineer and that I didn't graduate with a CS degree from UCLA.
I actually got A's in both probability and statistics.
Not only that but I actually am working on a project which I started based on what I learned in CS112 (I'll let you look that up) hwich was taught by Sanadidi when I took it. I was fascinated with Markov chains and as you probably don't know, that relies heavily on a strong probability background.
Your belief that I am bad at statistics probably stems from your inability to comprehend english and your tendancy to draw incorrect conclusions.
I am actually still in touch with Scott Parker who was actually the department chair at the time and my academic advisor.
It's too bad you didn't just try to pretend that UCLA is a shit school. By taking the position that I must not have graduated from UCLA, you are implicitly acknowledging that it is a good school.
EULA's tend to be pretty one sided. I can't remember the last time a EULA described something the software company who made the EULA was not allowed to do.
I simply send a letter to the companies that produce the software I use that reads "By reading this letter you forfeit the right to enforce your EULA, and also you agree to send me $100".
That's a class not a language construct even if it's in the standard library. AFAIK You could make smart pointer classes for C++ since it's inception.
In lots of other languages (e.g. java) you are prevented from making "dumb" pointers.
My point is that using smart pointers is a choice you must make in C++, rather than a choice that is made for you.
The fact that someone can make the wrong choice is not a problem with Qt (even if they are using Qt), the fact they were able to use dumb pointers is a feature of C++. No C++ framework is going to be able to change that.
That's basically what I was getting at. The Qt pointers are flavors of c++ smart pointers. Smart pointers are possible with c++ but they are not language constructs or supported directly.
The problem the OP referred to of "sending a pointer in a signal and having it deleted out from under you", is a c/c++ problem (rather than a Qt problem) in the sense that it is possible/probable for bad programmers to do these things in c/c++ because the language allows it, as opposed to GC languages (e.g. java), which don;t suffer from this particular problem.
Memory management need not be a problem in C++. You are just required to know about smart pointers, and actually enforce their usage (if on a team).
The fact that he is calling new and delete gives us a hint that he is not using something less than a Turing complete language. I do still remember my automata theory pretty well, and actually work on safety critical code that is supposed to be "deterministic". In that world when people "prove" things, it simply means that they have restricted the use of confusing/error prone software constructs, and do lots of testing.
They do not usually use a language that is reduced to the point of no longer being turing complete as this typically restricts their ability to do what is required.
Of course, if they could *actually* prove the software was free of defects, they wouldn't need to test it.
Furthermore, I've found, that removing these hard to analyze software constructs like (exceptions, inheritance, rtti, dynamic memory, etc), often leads to code, which while easy to analyze at a low level (e.g. no buffer overflows), is utterly unmaintainable at the architecture/design level (lots of duplicate code, non scalable, semantically ambiguous, etc).
You are unqualified to decide what is being demonstrated by anything.
I graduated with a BS in computer science in june 2004, and I have been working ever since. I staring at my "10 years of service" award on the wall of my office right now. It's about to be 11 years in august.
Your assertion that when I created a slashdot account is evidence for how long I have been a software engineer is ridiculous, and illustrative of your general lack of analytical abilities.
You aren't supposed to allocate and deallocate memory because it is usually not time-deterministic. But there are memory allocators that are time deterministic, but you lose some other nice features that general purpose memory allocators have.
Can I prove it? You can bet you life on it. Literally.
You solved the halting problem? Awesome. Now make a bug free static analysis tool that finds all the bugs in everyone else's code, and we will live in a world where every piece software is perfect and you are the greatest computer scientist who ever lived after proving Turing wrong.
the guys that know C / ASM always seem to have a better understanding of problems in general.
Compared to what? The guys who don't understand C / ASM? Or compared to the guys who understand higher level constructs like OOP and can actually make the proper abstractions to make the code maintainable and scalable?
This is like saying "the guys who know how to pour cement and hammer nails into 2x4's (i.e. construction workers) always seem to have a better understanding of architecture". Better than who? soccer moms or architects?
Why does it matter if the QT codebase is huge? Qt is a general purpose framework. Of course it is going to be huge and have a bunch of stuff you don't need. Luckily you don't need the parts you don't need.
The OP specifically wanted cross platform networking code, and your suggestion is to for him write platform specific network code for all the platforms he intends to use, effectively writing the functionality that a framework like Qt provides.
He's asking for advice on the best hammer to buy, and you are suggesting that he should make his own hammer.
Coincidentally I am currently working on porting an existing codebase that uses the Qt framework to not use *any* framework. This means I am writing all my own platform specific network code as you are describing (along with every other feature that used to depend on Qt). Nothing makes you appreciate something more than losing it.
Having to redo all (actually only a fraction) of the work that Qt did really makes you appreciate the convenience that it provides. Our codebase is now much larger (i.e. the codebase we are responsible for maintaining).
I know you really want it to be true that I am not a proficient software engineer, but like your other beliefs, it simply doesn't match reality.
There is nothing I can do to prove to you that I am proficient at computer science, so I'm not going to try.
I don't care if you believe it or not. I still go home with my paycheck and you go home with your paycheck from working as some low level IT guy, or at the local movie theater.
Slashdot Mirror
I know no one will see this. I'm not doing this for other people. Other people can see my other comments in other threads, and it will be obvious to them that I am a software engineer. I am doing this because I want to see how long you want to continue to look like an idiot.
I have provided plenty of evidence that I am who I say I am. I can provide even more, and you will never find a discrepancy. It probably will continue not to convince you, because of your bizarrely desperate need for me not to be a software engineer.
Why is it so important to you that I am not a software engineer? Why is it so important to you that I didn't graduate from a good school with a CS degree? Do you fail to get into college? Are you struggling with remedial CS classes in your local community college?
I could easily prove that I am very knowledgeable about computer science to someone else who is knowledgeable. I can answer questions that aren't simply a matter of googling. But it doesn't matter, because you wouldn't be able to ask the right questions or understand the answers.
We haven't even tried to validate your credentials. Why not? Because I don't care and I'm sure their shit.
If you want to keep going, I'll keep going (until I get bored).
It's nice to know that *some* good actually came from all this NSA spying. We didn't really catch any terrorists, but we were able to expose hypocrisy in the French government. Mission Accomplished.
That may be an example of government coercion. It's not coercion on the part of property owners deciding rent prices.
Threat of physical violence is basically where something becomes coercion. Charging high rent prices (i.e. "forcing" someone to make a choice to either pay your rent price or rent a different property) is not coercion. This is like saying Apple is coercing me by forcing me to buy their phone or to get a different phone or to be phoneless.
If a piece of land is capable of making more money as a luxury condos, it means that not doing this is an inefficient use of resources. It's not as if some huge percentage of the population is super wealthy. There is a limit to the market for luxury housing given the incredibly small percentage of people that own most of the wealth. If the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, you'd think they'd be tearing down luxury condos to make apartments with smaller units, or at least have trouble renting out existing apartments that used to be occupied by America's former middle class that can no longer afford them.
Let's say the government of this impoverished 3rd world country passed laws preventing the sale of land to foreigners. This would basically keep the land effectively in a state of low demand, and the people who owned it would remain poor because their land (while valuable to foreigners), can not be sold to the people willing to pay the highest price.
Now if you actually let them sell their land to wealthy Americans, then they have the choice to have their property or lots of money.
What gives us the "the right to push them out?". I suppose it is the fact that the people who owned the land wanted to sell it to us. What gives you the right to tell people to whom they can and can't sell their land to? Maybe some of these poor people want to be able to capitalize on their newly valuable property.
I'm sure the billionaire fuckholes would rather get a higher profit buy building a new building than buying existing buildings at inflated prices. It would be nearly impossible for all the rich people to band together to keep supply low, when the profit potential for breaking this cartel is so high. Fortunately we have the government to do the work of keeping supply artificially low, and in effect holding the cartel together.
Regardless of who buys up all the properties (billionaire fuckholes or nice peace corps volunteers), the supply is being kept low, which is driving up demand.
The people of overpopulated cities can vote to increase the level of housing, or the can move to less crowded cities.
It's hilarious to me that your whole argument hinges on the fact that I am not a software engineer and that I didn't graduate with a CS degree from UCLA.
I actually got A's in both probability and statistics.
Not only that but I actually am working on a project which I started based on what I learned in CS112 (I'll let you look that up) hwich was taught by Sanadidi when I took it. I was fascinated with Markov chains and as you probably don't know, that relies heavily on a strong probability background.
Your belief that I am bad at statistics probably stems from your inability to comprehend english and your tendancy to draw incorrect conclusions.
I am actually still in touch with Scott Parker who was actually the department chair at the time and my academic advisor.
It's too bad you didn't just try to pretend that UCLA is a shit school. By taking the position that I must not have graduated from UCLA, you are implicitly acknowledging that it is a good school.
You are fucking pathetic.
Ironclad evidence: They sent an email saying "Your new samsung laptop is being built". In the court of slashdot, everyone is a lawyer.
EULA's tend to be pretty one sided. I can't remember the last time a EULA described something the software company who made the EULA was not allowed to do.
Why does your browser take so long to open?
I simply send a letter to the companies that produce the software I use that reads "By reading this letter you forfeit the right to enforce your EULA, and also you agree to send me $100".
oh wait... now I remember
but I don't remember any hover bikes the star wars movies. I do remember there being lots of things that hovered, but nothing I would call a bike.
That's a class not a language construct even if it's in the standard library. AFAIK You could make smart pointer classes for C++ since it's inception.
In lots of other languages (e.g. java) you are prevented from making "dumb" pointers.
My point is that using smart pointers is a choice you must make in C++, rather than a choice that is made for you.
The fact that someone can make the wrong choice is not a problem with Qt (even if they are using Qt), the fact they were able to use dumb pointers is a feature of C++. No C++ framework is going to be able to change that.
UCLA was a reputable school last time I checked.
That's basically what I was getting at. The Qt pointers are flavors of c++ smart pointers. Smart pointers are possible with c++ but they are not language constructs or supported directly.
The problem the OP referred to of "sending a pointer in a signal and having it deleted out from under you", is a c/c++ problem (rather than a Qt problem) in the sense that it is possible/probable for bad programmers to do these things in c/c++ because the language allows it, as opposed to GC languages (e.g. java), which don;t suffer from this particular problem.
Memory management need not be a problem in C++. You are just required to know about smart pointers, and actually enforce their usage (if on a team).
The fact that he is calling new and delete gives us a hint that he is not using something less than a Turing complete language. I do still remember my automata theory pretty well, and actually work on safety critical code that is supposed to be "deterministic". In that world when people "prove" things, it simply means that they have restricted the use of confusing/error prone software constructs, and do lots of testing.
They do not usually use a language that is reduced to the point of no longer being turing complete as this typically restricts their ability to do what is required.
Of course, if they could *actually* prove the software was free of defects, they wouldn't need to test it.
Furthermore, I've found, that removing these hard to analyze software constructs like (exceptions, inheritance, rtti, dynamic memory, etc), often leads to code, which while easy to analyze at a low level (e.g. no buffer overflows), is utterly unmaintainable at the architecture/design level (lots of duplicate code, non scalable, semantically ambiguous, etc).
You are unqualified to decide what is being demonstrated by anything.
I graduated with a BS in computer science in june 2004, and I have been working ever since. I staring at my "10 years of service" award on the wall of my office right now. It's about to be 11 years in august.
Your assertion that when I created a slashdot account is evidence for how long I have been a software engineer is ridiculous, and illustrative of your general lack of analytical abilities.
Shouldn't you be cleaning up some popcorn?
Those are gui toolkits, not cross platform frameworks.
You aren't supposed to allocate and deallocate memory because it is usually not time-deterministic. But there are memory allocators that are time deterministic, but you lose some other nice features that general purpose memory allocators have.
Can I prove it? You can bet you life on it. Literally.
You solved the halting problem? Awesome. Now make a bug free static analysis tool that finds all the bugs in everyone else's code, and we will live in a world where every piece software is perfect and you are the greatest computer scientist who ever lived after proving Turing wrong.
the guys that know C / ASM always seem to have a better understanding of problems in general.
Compared to what? The guys who don't understand C / ASM? Or compared to the guys who understand higher level constructs like OOP and can actually make the proper abstractions to make the code maintainable and scalable?
This is like saying "the guys who know how to pour cement and hammer nails into 2x4's (i.e. construction workers) always seem to have a better understanding of architecture". Better than who? soccer moms or architects?
Why does it matter if the QT codebase is huge? Qt is a general purpose framework. Of course it is going to be huge and have a bunch of stuff you don't need. Luckily you don't need the parts you don't need.
The OP specifically wanted cross platform networking code, and your suggestion is to for him write platform specific network code for all the platforms he intends to use, effectively writing the functionality that a framework like Qt provides.
He's asking for advice on the best hammer to buy, and you are suggesting that he should make his own hammer.
Coincidentally I am currently working on porting an existing codebase that uses the Qt framework to not use *any* framework. This means I am writing all my own platform specific network code as you are describing (along with every other feature that used to depend on Qt). Nothing makes you appreciate something more than losing it.
Having to redo all (actually only a fraction) of the work that Qt did really makes you appreciate the convenience that it provides. Our codebase is now much larger (i.e. the codebase we are responsible for maintaining).
I know you really want it to be true that I am not a proficient software engineer, but like your other beliefs, it simply doesn't match reality.
There is nothing I can do to prove to you that I am proficient at computer science, so I'm not going to try.
I don't care if you believe it or not. I still go home with my paycheck and you go home with your paycheck from working as some low level IT guy, or at the local movie theater.